The BSA should get tough on scouts and scouters violating inclusion policies

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

1 hour ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Change takes time. If you want people to embrace it, they need to feel like they have some control over their change. In the long run, it's better to earn respect than have it legislated.

As a teenager, I thought homosexuality was a morally grey area - then I actually met a few gay people and realized "oh, if so and so is gay, it can't be that bad." A few years ago, I hired someone who happened to be gay. They turned out to be the best direct report I've ever had. My opinion of them is sky high. Today, I would wear a rainbow t-shirt and march in a parade with them if they asked.

Had I seen more PowerPoints and pamphlets in my youth, I doubt I would have arrived at this level of acceptance / advocacy any faster. 🙂

 

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. It sounds to me like you're saying that we should let scouts and scouters break any and all parts of the scout law as long as they're experiencing change that's hard for them personally. If scouts are being unkind, unfriendly, etc towards other scouts, then it's on the scouts being targeted to "earn respect" from the aggressors and we scouters shouldn't intervene, not even if the aggressor is another scouter? 

Or are you talking about changing why some scouts would choose to bully female and LGBTQIA+ scouts, but not actually the question of what to do about the YPT violations their choices lead to?

[BetterWithCheddar 125]

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I'm not sure I understood you correctly ...

I'm suggesting it's OK for adults to express reservations about membership changes online or in a Zoom meeting, provided it's done in a tactful manner. There is no need to "crack down" on them unless their comments target specific youth members or are deliberately hurtful. If you feel a youth in your area has been treated unfairly, by all means intervene on their behalf.  Scouting would not exist in some communities today were it not for some of these "old school" scout leaders. Change takes time and I'm not sure you can get there by extinguishing dissent.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

8 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Scouting would not exist in some communities today were it not for some of these "old school" scout leaders. Change takes time and I'm not sure you can get there by extinguishing dissent.

One of the many reasons why my district and council are in trouble  "old school Scouters" that left when membership changes occurred, and there was  no one with the knowledge, skills, abilities, time, and treasure to take their place. They leaving left giants gaps that years later still have not been filled.  Someone with 10, 20, 40, 60+ years experience in the program is extremely hard to replace.

You got others who still disagree with the membership changes, and will tell you why they disagree with them. They remain involved for "their boys," and are slowly coming around.

[yknot 1338]

22 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Scouting would not exist in some communities today were it not for some of these "old school" scout leaders. Change takes time and I'm not sure you can get there by extinguishing dissent.

That might have made sense the first year as people adjusted, but it has been six years and girls are nearly fully integrated into scouting. The fact that adult leaders, who are in charge of girls' safety and well being, are still allowed to hold such positions while espousing those views is a Youth Protection failure, not dissent. Keeping struggling units alive isn't an acceptable excuse. If old time leaders haven't worked it out by now to the point where they can accept it and focus on the kids then they shouldn't be responsible for them in scouting. We don't tolerate leaders with out of date views on other safety issues like shooting sports, water sports, or other aspects of youth protection. Girls are actively present in the organization and BSA is now responsible for their inclusion, safety, and protection. There really can't be dissent about their presence among adults who are charged with carrying out those responsibilities.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

That might have made sense the first year as people adjusted, but it has been six years and girls are nearly fully integrated into scouting. 

Change does takes time, sometimes decades. Especially those who have put in decades of blood, sweat, tears, time and treasure to the organizations. Trust me, I have seen what happens when they leave: no one fills the void.

Just  remember Venturing celebrated their 25th year last year, and people still call them venture scouts and venture crews, not Venturers and Venturing Crews.

[Eagledad 2779]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Just  remember Venturing celebrated their 25th year last year, and people still call them venture scouts and venture crews, not Venturers and Venturing Crews.

Or Explorers. 

Barry

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Change does takes time, sometimes decades. Especially those who have put in decades of blood, sweat, tears, time and treasure to the organizations. Trust me, I have seen what happens when they leave: no one fills the void.

Just  remember Venturing celebrated their 25th year last year, and people still call them venture scouts and venture crews, not Venturers and Venturing Crews.

Change is indeed painful but we are talking about adult leaders who are responsible for children so there really isn't much leeway to accommodate adult issues. Adults who resent the presence of some of the children they are supposed to be supporting and protecting probably shouldn't be in the organization six years in no matter what other value they bring. 

[Eagledad 2779]

12 minutes ago, yknot said:

Change is indeed painful but we are talking about adult leaders who are responsible for children so there really isn't much leeway to accommodate adult issues. Adults who resent the presence of some of the children they are supposed to be supporting and protecting probably shouldn't be in the organization six years in no matter what other value they bring. 

There is a huge difference between not agreeing with a policy and passionately working with youth. I'm a firm believer that the Tiger Cub program is the cause of thousands of families dropping out of the BSA, but I found a way to raise our numbers. I believe education about the struggles from policy changes is healthy because it provides dialogue for ideas to approach and improve or fix the issue.

Sad that so many folks feel that censure is the only way to stop discussions they don't like. 

Barry

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

On 4/7/2024 at 11:45 AM, BetterWithCheddar said:

I'm suggesting it's OK for adults to express reservations about membership changes online or in a Zoom meeting, provided it's done in a tactful manner. There is no need to "crack down" on them unless their comments target specific youth members or are deliberately hurtful. If you feel a youth in your area has been treated unfairly, by all means intervene on their behalf.  Scouting would not exist in some communities today were it not for some of these "old school" scout leaders. Change takes time and I'm not sure you can get there by extinguishing dissent.

I don't know that there's a tactful way to say "your presence here is bad/unwanted". You can deliver it with more or less polish, but "you should be kicked out of this organization" is a fundamentally unfriendly message. Allowing scouts and scouters to tell scouts they shouldn't be in scouting is not a good idea. It creates all kinds of problems in the long run, for both individual scouts and the organization as a whole. Even if the comments aren't targeting a specific youth member, it undermines our value foundation (you only really need to treat some scouts in a friendly and helpful manner) and so puts our reputation in question on that same point again.

And why would the medium in which the opinion is expressed matter? Why would something be ok to say on a Zoom or online but not in person?

Scouters who do think that BSA should change membership policy to exclude some scouts are certainly free to express that opinion as long as nobody affected by such a proposed policy change hears it. I mean... What would be the effect of allowing people to question the wisdom of allowing black scouts, Jewish scouts, Muslim scouts, Latino scouts, lower-class scouts, etc, in earshot of the scouts that would be affected and scouters who once were those scouts? It's "just asking questions" passive aggressive. That's not the same as scouters discussing it in private. There I agree with you. But this isn't private. It's in scout earshot.

I don't care so much about whether people who want girls and LGBTQIA+ scouts out of BSA change their minds, because whoever hasn't changed their mind at this point probably isn't going to. I care if they get in the way of scouts scouting.

Certainly, there are a lot of people who have served scouting for many years who have a problem with some scouts being in the program. They deserve many thanks and respect for what they've done for scouting. But that doesn't mean they can break the scout law now thanks to their long service. You can be grateful to someone and disapprove of specific things that they do at the same time. 

[yknot 1338]

17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

There is a huge difference between not agreeing with a policy and passionately working with youth. I'm a firm believer that the Tiger Cub program is the cause of thousands of families dropping out of the BSA, but I found a way to raise our numbers. I believe education about the struggles from policy changes is healthy because it provides dialogue for ideas to approach and improve or fix the issue.

Sad that so many folks feel that censure is the only way to stop discussions they don't like. 

Barry

I'm not sure that's a great example to pick, because when Tigers were added to the program, verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. Protecting children shouldn't require discussion. It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care. 

[OaklandAndy 70]

14 hours ago, yknot said:

It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care. 

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. 

Yes, change takes time. But getting use to the change and refusing to are completely separate feelings. And in the eyes of the organization, they are going to move on with or without you. 

 

Edited April 9 by OaklandAndy

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

20 hours ago, yknot said:

We don't tolerate leaders with out of date views on other safety issues like shooting sports, water sports, or other aspects of youth protection. 

Absolutely, we tolerate those with those "views".  What we do not tolerate is those who "act" against others in accordance with those views.

What you are advocating is akin to being the "Thought Police."

Not knowing the other specifics of the OP (that is, having only one version of the events), my pronouncement was simply that it was wrong of the person to use an open forum to vent his misgivings about membership policies.  And, it was also a failure by the discussion moderators there to not steer that person into other territory.  Zoom hosts can mute or boot anyone from a session.  They should feel free to use that power, but judiciously.

14 hours ago, yknot said:

verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders.

Where did that enter the equation in this thread??  I scanned the other pages and did not see anything about someone making threats??

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

9 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. 

Yes, change takes time. But getting use to the change and refusing to are completely separate feelings. And in the eyes of the organization, they are going to move on with or without you. 

 

Not quite...

For example, a CO and Unit Committee can choose not to allow someone who is openly gay (or a sex-changer) be a leader or youth in their unit.

In the case of the adult, if their lifestyle is not in line with the views and morals of the CO, then they have every right to exclude that person from their unit.  But, not from Scouting...

In the case of the youth, issues of sexuality should never be on the menu... but if they youth and or family push that agenda, then the unit has every right to exclude them as incompatible with their aims for their unit.  But, they cannot exclude the youth from Scouting...

[OaklandAndy 70]

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

But, they cannot exclude the youth from Scouting..

Isn't that what the topic is? It sounds like members have an issue with them in Scouting period, not necessarily in their unit or CO. Which goes back to my original point. 

What the CO decides is correct, however, your CO's decision doesn't speak for the entire organization, which is what is happening here. 

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

Just now, OaklandAndy said:

Isn't that what the topic is? It sounds like members have an issue with them in Scouting period, not necessarily in their unit or CO. Which goes back to my original point. 

What the CO decides is correct, however, your CO's decision doesn't speak for the entire organization, which is what is happening here. 

Completely agree, see my immediately previous post.